Patent Litigation

News & Analysis as of

There Is More than One Way to Slice the Apportionment Analysis - Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation v....

Addressing the application of the smallest salable patent-practicing unit analysis, as well as the impact of a patent’s standards essential status on apportionment and the relevance of prior licenses between the parties, the...more

High Stakes Race Between Apple and VirnetX: Will PTAB Trump The Texas Jury's Award of $326.5M?

A Texas jury today raised the stakes even higher in a race involving parallel proceedings between the PTAB and Texas district court when it found that Apple infringed the VirnetX patents and awarded to VirnetX $625.6M in...more

Asset Transferee Cannot Appeal Reexamination

The Federal Circuit dismissed the appeal in Agilent Technologies, Inc. v. Waters Technologies Corp., because the appellant was not a “third-party requester” dissatisfied with the final decision in an inter partes...more

Final Office Actions - Sometimes Final Is Not So Final

Patent prosecution is a back and forth dialogue to get the broadest coverage allowable. In order to keep from bogging down the system, the USPTO can issue a Final Office Action to close off prosecution. There are limited...more

Illumina Cambridge Ltd. v. Intelligent Bio-Systems, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2016)

The Federal Circuit affirmed a decision of obviousness, and that a patentee not be able to amend claims in an inter partes review proceeding, in an opinion handed down January 29th in Illumina Cambridge Ltd. v. Intelligent...more

Evidence of Copying Admissible in Patent Infringement Trial to Prove Nonobviousness

Metaswitch moved to exclude evidence of copying from a patent infringement action filed against it by Genband. Genband asserted during the pretrial process that it was seeking to introduce evidence of copying as an indication...more

Patent Trolls – What’s the Verdict? A Look at the Impact of the Apple Case

In what is potentially the largest “patent troll” verdict in history, Apple has lost a $625 million patent jury award to VirnetX, according to Reuters news service. The jury verdict in the Eastern District of Texas includes...more

In-House Counsel May View “Outside Counsel Only” Documents

A federal magistrate judge in Trenton has allowed in-house counsel for a New Jersey corporation to view discovery documents designated for “outside counsel eyes only.” The ruling in Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC v. Breckenridge...more

Purdue OxyContin Patents Invalid Despite Stemming From Discovery Of Source Of Toxic Impurity

In Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Epic Pharma LLC, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court decision holding four OxyContin patents invalid as obvious. In so doing, the court rejected Purdue’s arguments that its discovery of...more

PTAB Decision Highlights The Importance Of Petitioners Filing Within 1 Year Of The Earliest Possible Date Of Service

It is well known that an Inter Partes Review (IPR) may not be instituted if the petitioner was served with a complaint alleging infringement more than 1 year prior to the filing of the petition. 35 U.S.C. § 315(b). Recent...more

No Second Life for Fetal Test - Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc., et al. v. Sequenom, Inc., et al.

By a poll of active justices, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied a petition for an en banc rehearing of Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc., et al. v. Sequenom, Inc. et al. and issued two concurrences and one...more

Motivation Innovations, LLC v. Petsmart, Inc. (D. Del. 2016)

Coupon Patent Easily Found Invalid under § 101 - On January 12, 2016, the District Court for the District of Delaware issued an opinion in a case captioned Motivation Innovations, LLC v. Petsmart, Inc. Plaintiff,...more

Knobbe Martens Client Nomadix Prevails On Summary Judgment

On January 27, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California granted summary judgment in favor of Nomadix, Inc., ruling that competitor Blueprint RF infringes Nomadix’s patented Internet-access technology....more

Petitioners: Put All Needed Evidence in Your Petition - Redline Detection, LLC v. Star Envirotech, Inc.

Addressing the rules governing admissibility of supplemental information during an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal...more

NRT Technology Corp. v. Everi Payments, Inc. (PTAB 2016)

Business Method Patent Survives PTAB Review - On January 22, 2016, the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) issued a decision denying institution of a covered business method (CBM) patent review in a case captioned...more

APA Review of IPR Decisions to Institute Proving to be a Dead-end

The recent ruling in Medtronic v. Lee, No. 1-15-cv-946 (E.D. Va. Jan. 21, 2016) clarifies certain important questions about whether APA review is available when a petitioner is dissatisfied with the PTAB institution decision....more

Plaintiff Secures Sweeping Jury Verdict in Hotly-Contested Patent Fight

In a long-running patent fight involving two medical device manufacturers, a Massachusetts jury determined last week that the defendant Kaz had infringed two of plaintiff Exergen’s patents relating to temporal thermometers,...more

“Substantial Evidence” Review Dooms PTAB Appeal - Merck & Cie v. Gnosis S.P.A.

Addressing the issue of obviousness in the context of an inter partes review (IPR), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) under a...more

Pfizer v. Lee: A Patent Term Adjustment Double Standard?

In Pfizer v. Lee (No. 2015-1265, January 22, 2016), the Federal Circuit upheld the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO) determination that the toll period for A-type patent term adjustment (PTA) delay stops upon the...more

But, Why?

In Cutsforth, Inc. v. Motive Power, Inc., [2015-1316] the Federal Circuit vacated a PTAB decision that claims 1–24 of U.S. Patent No. 7,990,018 were invalid for obviousness because the Board did not adequately describe its...more

Popular Fantasy Football Draft Companies In Lawsuit Over Patent Infringement

Anyone who knows about fantasy leagues—or watches any professional or collegiate games—has undoubtedly heard of DraftKings and FanDuel. Both companies offer a Daily Fantasy Sports (“DFS”) gaming website that allows people to...more

District Court Rules Plaintiff Need Not Come Forward with Evidence of Priority Date Earlier than Patent Application Until...

Omega Patents, LLC ("Omega") filed a patent infringement action against CalAmp Corp. ("CalAmp") asserting that CalAmp infringes the claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,346,876 ("the '876 Patent"), U.S. Patent No. 6,737,989 ("the '989...more

Advanced Marketing Systems, LLC v. CVS Pharmacy (E.D. Tex. 2016)

In February 2015, Advanced Marketing Systems (AMS) sued a number of defendants, alleging infringement of various claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,219,445, 8,370,199, and 8,538,805. The defendants filed a motion for judgment on...more

Inphi v. Netlist: Alternative Features Satisfy the Patent Written Description Requirement for a Negative Claim Limitation

It can be tricky to evaluate written description support under 35 U.S.C. § 112 for negative claim limitations since the support may amount to the absence of a feature from an invention that is described positively with...more

Federal Circuit Holds a Defective Restriction Requirement Ends Patent Term Adjustment

In Pfizer v. Lee, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that a “defective” restriction requirement was sufficient to stop the period of patent term adjustment granted when the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office...more

2,908 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 117

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:

Sign up to create your digest using LinkedIn*

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.

Already signed up? Log in here

*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.
×